User talk:Jdogno7
Antisemitism Every source I have seen is defining antisemitism as "extreme hatred or prejudice against Jews". Not once have I seen the definition also include Muslims. I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from, and it matters not if Muslims are considered Semites. We go by popular definition here. "Streamlining signature" If you're going to keep so-called streamlining your signature, by removing the two hyphens at the beginning of each and every one, why put in the hyphens in the first place? There is a signature button at the top left corner of the page every time you're editing something; use it instead. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:04, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Hey, I demand an answer. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:16, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::I gave you an answer on your talk page. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::I noticed. Hopefully you put my advice to good use. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:21, January 27, 2017 (UTC) What advice would that be? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:27, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Semites Semites would be considered a member of a group of people who speak one of 20-25+ languages (Ahlamu, Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian), Amharic, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite (Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge'ez, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Sutean, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, among others.) Out of these only Arabic, Hebrew and Maltese are still used. With Arabic it is tied to both a race and a religion but not synonymously. Arabic was in use before Islam was founded. There are plenty of Arabs and non-Arabs who speak Arabic but are not Muslim. Hebrew is tied to a religion but not a race. You can have Jews of any variation of White European, African Black, Indigenous North and South American, Asian and even Australian Aboriginal. And just saying that there could be converts from any racial denomination, so thus the language is tied to a religion. Maltese is tied to a race but not a religion. Just saying that Malta's main religion is Christianity but Maltese is not globally a sacred language for Christianity while Hebrew is for Judaism and Arabic for Islam. The word AntiSemitism for how it is used is a misnomer. "Anti" means against and "Semetic" I have explained above. Thus my point. Jdogno7 (talk) 08:07, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :Antisemitic is being popularly defined as "anti-Jew". Take it up with the people who defined it in the first place. Until then, we stick with antisemitic. Cut it out, or I will report you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:15, January 16, 2017 (UTC) I would take it up with Heinrich von Treitschke who made the term synonymous with hatred against Jews but he died in 1896. Jdogno7 (talk) 08:27, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :Start a campaign against the accuracy of the term. Do whatever. But for now, the term is undisputed and is appropriate for usage. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:29, January 16, 2017 (UTC) ::I must agree that the term is being used as is generally understood. 31dot (talk) 12:54, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :::Thank you. :) UnSub-Zero (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :::But Anti-Jew is more appropriate for usage. So why can't it be used? Jdogno7 (talk) 21:35, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :::Should I take the fact that you did not respond to my above argument as a sign of agreement or apathy? Jdogno7 (talk) 04:58, January 24, 2017 (UTC) ::::Read the whole discussion. An admin just agreed that "antisemitic" is being used as is generally understood, so therefore it's appropriate. Anti-Jew is apparently only your opinion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:22, January 24, 2017 (UTC) :::::Admins are not always right about everything. Jdogno7 (talk) 02:40, January 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::And you are? UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:11, January 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I have never claimed to never be wrong. But you have yet to give a logical argument that is sound and solid. Jdogno7 (talk) 04:23, January 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::I did. Read the whole discussion again and come back to me. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:25, January 25, 2017 (UTC) I have red the whole discussion. But where is it? Jdogno7 (talk) 04:35, January 25, 2017 (UTC) Use of first, middle and last names You have reported me because I disagree with you? Jdogno7 (talk) 07:21, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Your reasoning is very poor. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:24, January 27, 2017 (UTC) How so? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :What do you mean "how so"? UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::I mean explain what is wrong with my reasoning. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:14, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::You claim surnames pose a problem to grammar yet I don't see how. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:15, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::I did not say that. I meant when talking about two or more characters who have the same last name that it becomes confusing. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:18, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::Well, you still said "grammar"; you should've clarified more. Anyway, it's not confusing to me, and I just fixed it. So problem solved. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::::When did I say grammar as a reason? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:22, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::::For the love of God... UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:24, January 27, 2017 (UTC) I checked. The grammar issue was to do with adding an s to "Amanda'". Jdogno7 (talk) 11:25, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Streamlining signature I do not remove the hyphens the first time because I do not want to accidentally erase part of the signature. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:19, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Blocked I have blocked you for edit warring. This is not the forum to change how society uses any term- or more specifically, how Law and Order used the term. If you continue to edit war after the block, you will be blocked for longer. 31dot (talk) 11:34, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "I have blocked you for edit warring. This is not the forum to change how society uses any term- or more specifically, how Law and Order used the term. If you continue to edit war after the block, you will be blocked for longer.": "I have blocked you for edit warring.", How am I edit warring? "This is not the forum to change how society uses any term- or more specifically, how Law and Order used the term.", What are you mad about there? Is it because I wrote this: "Why not? If a term is used in an inaccurate manner even by the majority of the human populace, then those who are aware of the correct usage should try to encourage others to use it more accurately. Does not LAO SVU encourage the idea of overcoming ignorance? Jdogno7 (talk) 09:18, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "If you continue to edit war after the block, you will be blocked for longer.", What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that I can't defend my opinion on a given matter? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:53, January 27, 2017 (UTC) You posted to the Memory Alpha test wiki. First, that is a test wiki and not the actual Memory Alpha; Second, issues with this wiki should not be carried over to other wikis, they should be dealt with here. I have kept your ability to edit this page if you wish to comment (though it can be removed if needed). 31dot (talk) 14:50, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "I have kept your ability to edit this page if you wish to comment (though it can be removed if needed).": "I have kept your ability to edit this page if you wish to comment...", I had no way of knowing that. "(though it can be removed if needed).", Is that meant to be a threat? Are you saying that if I write something that you don't like, you will block me completely? Jdogno7 (talk) 01:57, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Edit warring is repeatedly reversing an edit or edits that one made to a page in order to protect them. You did so at Mitch Carroll and other pages. This is generally considered disruptive; once a disagreement about an edit is known, the user attempting to make a change (you, in this case) must start a discussion on the relevant article talk page and attempt to gain consensus for it. Failing to do so in this case is enough to block you; furthermore, you seem to have a broader issue with the use of the term "anti-semite" or "anti-semetic" by society as a whole; this small corner of the internet isn't the forum to get people to use the term as you feel it should be; we use it 1) as the Law and Order shows used it, and 2) as society understands it. Using this wiki as a platform for social change isn't in keeping with its purpose, which is to create and maintain an encyclopedia about Law and Order- which is another reason to block you. You can defend and post your opinion on talk pages, but you cannot continually reverse removals of your edit just because you think they are correct. You must discuss them- and if the discussion does not go your way, you must respect that. 31dot (talk) 15:02, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "Edit warring is repeatedly reversing an edit or edits that one made to a page in order to protect them.": Understood. "You did so at Mitch Carroll and other pages.": How so? "This is generally considered disruptive; once a disagreement about an edit is known, the user attempting to make a change (you, in this case) must start a discussion on the relevant article talk page and attempt to gain consensus for it.": I did discuss the issue about the specifics of AntiSemitism. "Failing to do so in this case is enough to block you; furthermore, you seem to have a broader issue with the use of the term "anti-semite" or "anti-semetic" by society as a whole; this small corner of the internet isn't the forum to get people to use the term as you feel it should be; we use it 1) as the Law and Order shows used it, and 2) as society understands it.": How did I fail "to do so in this case"? "Using this wiki as a platform for social change isn't in keeping with its purpose, which is to create and maintain an encyclopedia about Law and Order- which is another reason to block you.": This is not about political correctness. This is about technical correctness. "You can defend and post your opinion on talk pages, but you cannot continually reverse removals of your edit just because you think they are correct.": I gave reasons for my changes. "You must discuss them- and if the discussion does not go your way, you must respect that.": I did and do discuss them. I do respect that. Jdogno7 (talk) 05:08, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :You made the same edit to Mitch Carroll five times, three on the same day; both of which would be enough to get you blocked on Wikipedia. 31dot (talk) 09:20, January 28, 2017 (UTC) I did not revert back the edit without asking for clarification or giving an explanation to back up my point. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:09, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :It's still edit warring. Once an edit is disputed, it should be left alone and discussed. 31dot (talk) 20:38, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Okay. I understand. I will take note of that in future. Can I come back if I can prove I am capable of doing that? Jdogno7 (talk) 00:09, January 29, 2017 (UTC) "I highly urge you to restrict Jdogno7's access to his talk page while he's blocked.": I knew it was a vendetta. "I was merely posting my opinion about if you should lift the block on him and he is constantly trying to suppress it by undoing my messages.": You are trying to assert authority over me that you do not have thus you are being a bully. "He has also accused me of being a bully, even though I have a right to pitch my opinion in talk page discussions, which he denies exists.": I have accused you of being a bully because you are acting like one. You may have a right to express an opinion, you do not have a right to obnoxiously harass others. "I am really sick of his behavior, and I would urge you to extend his block if I could as well.": Again. A vendetta. This is in accordance with UnSub-Zero's message posted at 07:08, January 29, 2017 (UTC) For the above stated reasons I have removed the messages posted at 04:22, January 29, 2017 (UTC), 06:46, January 29, 2017 (UTC) and 06:50, January 29, 2017 (UTC). It is harassment! "Now he is being contradictory.": How so? "He claims I'm bullying him, yet he keeps removing my messages on his talk page when I haven't removed any of his messages on his talk page or mine AT ALL.": I have not sent you harassing messages. "I find this guy so unbearable at this point.": You became intolerant of me the moment you posted the following: "I am really starting to get ticked off by this guy. Please respond ASAP. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:26, January 27, 2017 (UTC) This in accordance with the message posted by UnSub-Zero at 07:29, January 29, 2017 (UTC) To 31dot Can you please get UnSub-Zero to leave me alone? Jdogno7 (talk) 09:56, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :I believe that, as on Wikipedia, a user is able to remove content from their own user talk page- though it is considered an indication that they read it. I have no issue with Jdogno7 removing content from this page. 31dot (talk) 10:42, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :I would also recommend that you both take a break from interacting with each other(even after this block is over) until you are able to constructively. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until that point. 31dot (talk) 10:48, January 29, 2017 (UTC) What edit warring? What continued disruption? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:55, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Notice You are still edit warring; if you continue to edit war, I will block you as well. If you revert an edit you see as problematic, and that is reverted, you should start discussing it, not revert it yourself a second time. 31dot (talk) 02:34, February 6, 2017 (UTC) Full first name vs. nickname I didn't watch these episodes, so I have no idea what they were called. But isn't it in my understanding that we call characters by their nickname instead of their full name, especially if said nickname is used more commonly in the episodes the characters appeared? UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:40, February 14, 2017 (UTC) :What do you mean? Jdogno7 (talk) 05:34, February 14, 2017 (UTC) ::If characters are more commonly referred by their nicknames than their actual names, it is only logical that we refer to them as such. Clearly another user agrees with this stance, so it's best if you discuss it on the talk page if you continue to think otherwise. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:59, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Instead of wasting your time by posting all of those questions on all of those article talk pages, you should probably discuss the issue on TrainLubber's own talk page, since he's the one mainly having problems with your belief. UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:49, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Also don't post it to every single talk page remotely connected to the character!!!--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 04:07, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :Since it was concerning those articles, I thought it appropriate to put them on the respective articles' talk pages. Jdogno7 (talk) 03:53, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Since so many articles are involved, it's much easier to simply discuss it on the user's talk page instead of the articles. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:12, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :::I would agree that in general, the most common name of a character should be used, as that is what a reader would most likely be looking for. The article itself can mention the full name(if it was used). 31dot (talk) 12:05, February 16, 2017 (UTC) "I would agree that in general, the most common name of a character should be used, as that is what a reader would most likely be looking for.": Alright. I have created a disambiguation page for individuals who are known simply as Kim "somebody". My question is: From the perspective of a reader, which individuals are male and which are female? Based on simply reading the names but not knowing what they look like and not knowing the gender of any specific Kim. Jdogno7 (talk) 12:42, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :Are you referring to unseen characters? 31dot (talk) 13:17, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::I think he means all characters, seen and unseen. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:40, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :::"I think he means all characters, seen and unseen.": Correct. Jdogno7 (talk) 09:08, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Signature It shouldn't be necessary to "streamline signature" and have every post you make take two edits. This unnecessarily adds edits to the system. The dashes in the signature are because it is typically placed at the end of your talk page post and not on a separate line. 31dot (talk) 11:37, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Removing them does save data. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not even sure why you have dashes appear, I don't for some reason. It might be an option in the preferences- but taking two edits every time you sign your posts takes up space in the edit history and pushes other posts off prematurely, aside from the space that the edits take up. I would request that you not do this. 31dot (talk) 11:44, February 16, 2017 (UTC) "but taking two edits every time you sign your posts takes up space in the edit history and pushes other posts off prematurely,": How so? Just trying to understand? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:49, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :I mistyped and I apologize; what I meant to say what that every edit you make is logged in the Recent Changes page. The Recent Changes page typically displays the last 100 edits (or whatever number you choose to see) Let's say you make 25 posts to talk pages. If you take two edits to do so every time, the Recent Changes page displays 50 edits by you when only 25 of them are actual edits and the other 25 are you "streamlining". This pushes 25 other edits off the Recent Changes page prematurely and as such they can't be examined by other users. That's leaving aside the space in the server the extra edits take up. 31dot (talk) 11:54, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Okay. I will try my best to remember and keep that in mind in future. But if I forget do not be angry it was not out of malice. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:59, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Page moves I have started a discussion on this page about the issue of article titles. Please don't move any other pages until this is discussed. 31dot (talk) 12:24, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Please heed this. UnSub-Zero (talk) 10:45, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :I have. Haven't I? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:10, February 17, 2017 (UTC) ::You should participate if you want everything to be changed up. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:23, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Block I have decided to block you for your continued disruptive behavior. While I don't use what happens on other wikis to determine whether or not to block someone here, I am less inclined to unblock you early due to your pattern of behavior elsewhere. I am not interested in debating that or this block, it speaks for itself. I hope that you take this time to learn how to better conduct yourself here. I would request that other users not respond to any comments made here. Thank you in advance. 31dot (talk) 11:56, February 17, 2017 (UTC) "I have decided to block you for your continued disruptive behavior.": What disruptive behavior? "While I don't use what happens on other wikis to determine whether or not to block someone here, I am less inclined to unblock you early due to your pattern of behavior elsewhere.": What "pattern of behavior"? Where would "elsewhere" be? "I am not interested in debating that or this block, it speaks for itself.": What do you mean by "debating that", what is "that"? How is it that "it speaks for itself."? If we don't discuss things, how can we expect others to understand? Jdogno7 (talk) 12:12, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :If you either haven't figured out what you have done by now, or are unable to understand, I'm not sure anything I say will make a difference as you've already been told what you are doing incorrectly. Either way I'm growing more concerned that you don't have the skills to be able to properly conduct yourself here. 31dot (talk) 12:21, February 17, 2017 (UTC) "If you either haven't figured out what you have done by now, or are unable to understand, I'm not sure anything I say will make a difference as you've already been told what you are doing incorrectly.": All I was asking was how I was edit warring or behaving disruptively? What incidents were of concern? Jdogno7 (talk) 12:30, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :Which kinda goes to my point; you've been told what you have been doing wrong, but you don't seem to understand. There is no one specific incident, but a general pattern of behavior. 31dot (talk) 12:49, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Well if you don't explain, how can I? How can you say there is a general pattern but not describe specific incidents? Jdogno7 (talk) 13:06, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :You have had it explained to you and not just by me. If you still don't understand, I can't do much more to help. 31dot (talk) 13:13, February 17, 2017 (UTC) How was I disruptive? Could you please explain that to me at the least? Jdogno7 (talk) 13:43, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :Asked and answered; you don't seem to understand. Now removing talk page access. I hope that when you return, if you choose to, that you take the time to learn how to improve your conduct here and heed the advice of others that you have already been given. If you do not, further action will be taken. 31dot (talk) 13:52, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Jdogno7 History I was asked by other users on this wiki to come in and state my piece regarding Jdogno7 and his history on the Wikia network in general. I was sought out because I've had numerous encounters with his destructive behavior on other wikis, and he has been blocked from the community site more than once for harassment of myself and other members of the site. He likes to disguise his behavior by claiming that he simply "disagrees" with others, but a perusal of his history will show that he routinely replaces correct grammar with incorrect grammar, performs mass-edits of wikis when his changes are either non-canonical or unwarranted, and regularly engages in edit wars. Furthermore, he steadfastly refuses to compromise with site administrators, and has been blocked from several other wikis for his behavior, for harassing other users, and for hostility. In the interest of saving you time and preventing you from having to do extensive research on your own, I've compiled evidence of his behavior from other wikis. You can see for yourself the problems he's caused here simply by checking his talk page as well as his contribution history. Jdogno7 is either currently blocked or has been blocked multiple times from the following wikis for variations of the exact same behavior. For your convenience, these links lead directly to the contribution pages of the associated wikis, so you can verify my claims at your leisure. * [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Digimon Wiki] * [http://hercxena.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Hercules & Xena Wiki] * [http://smallville.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Smallville Wiki] * [http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Dragon Ball Wiki] * [http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Disney Wiki] * [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 DC Universe Wiki] * [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Wookiepedia] * [http://scoobydoo.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Scoobypedia] * [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 Harry Potter Wiki] * [http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jdogno7 iCarly Wiki] His disruptive behavior exhibits the following themes: Mass Edits He commonly carries out mass edits of dozens of articles at a time, usually to perform search-and-replace style terminology changes. His favorite changes are: * Replacing any instance of the word "god" to "deity" when the former is considered canonically appropriate. This was especially a problem on the Legendary Journeys wiki, where the term "god" is explicitly stated to be a canonical catch-all. * Replacing "and" with "as well as" despite the latter lending specific focal weight during a sentence. He seems to think these two terms are grammatically interchangeable. * Replacing last name references, typically considered more in-line with the formal tone of Wikia, with first names. Belligerent Disruption * Displays little respect for wiki admins, typically choosing to outright ignore their requests to cease his edits. * Uses edit summaries and talk pages to argue incessantly with other users and notably refuses to use discussion pages when there is a dispute unless called out first. * Demands that any admin request be thoroughly explained to him, but then refuses to accept any given explanation. * Push him long enough, and he begins to go on tirades about vendettas, unfair treatment, and other nonsensical accusations. He has even been known to go to the community site and demand that administrators be "admonished" for their behavior, despite the fact that Wiki admins have full control over their wikis. * Has no idea how discussion quoting works, and will place quotes and responses inline with one another when discussing things. I'm sure he knows that this is improper formatting, but does it anyway because (as previously indicated) he's a troll and knows it makes his rebuttals difficult and frustrating to read. Harassment * He will engage in continued and repeated harassment of other wiki users even when asked to stop, going to far as to seek out those users on other wikis to harass them and demand explanations. LuciaMoore (talk) 21:38, February 19, 2017 (UTC) Further block Upon further reflection and investigation, and seeing that the likelihood of improved behavior is low, I have made the block permanent. 31dot (talk) 22:19, February 19, 2017 (UTC) This user has contacted me on a different wiki(a test version of Memory Alpha); I have told them I would not even consider unblocking them for a year, if ever. 31dot (talk) 07:20, March 14, 2017 (UTC) :I think he may have done something similar with another admin on that same wiki. Can't remember. If he keeps it up, you might have to report him to Wikia proper. UnSub-Zero (talk) 14:46, March 14, 2017 (UTC) ::I wouldn't be surprised. I've also told them just now that the more they post about it, the less likely I will even consider unblocking them(let alone actually doing it)- and that I will ignore any further pleas from them. 31dot (talk) 17:24, March 14, 2017 (UTC) :::I honestly doubt he'll get the message. UnSub-Zero (talk) 17:55, March 14, 2017 (UTC) Posting that they have again bothered me on Community Central(just as is stated above that this person does) here. 31dot (talk) 11:24, April 24, 2017 (UTC) :I think the phrase "don't feed the troll" is most appropriate here. If he's still whining and moaning about this block (I mean, it's been over two months since the fact, like holy!), then he doesn't deserve to come back. If anything, you should report the user's continuing disruptive behavior to Wikia's higher-ups, because he's wasting your valuable time and he has no right to do that, especially when you are administrator of a number of Wikias. UnSub-Zero (talk) 14:42, April 24, 2017 (UTC) ::I don't think Staff gets involved in issues like this; they've also started a separate thread. I have no intention of changing my position unless there is a radical change on this person's part, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that likely. 31dot (talk) 14:49, April 24, 2017 (UTC) :::Well, this might suck for you, then. :( UnSub-Zero (talk) 15:22, April 24, 2017 (UTC) ::::The more Jdogno7 brings this up, the more people will see what is going on. I welcome a review. 31dot (talk) 17:01, April 24, 2017 (UTC)